United States v. Michael Holiway

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Lavenski R. Smith and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3994516-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Laine Cardarella. [4004993] [12-2612]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2612 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Michael D. Holiway, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: February 7, 2013 Filed: February 14, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Holiway appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 1 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 12-2612 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Entry ID: 4004993 violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing. Upon careful review, we find no basis for concluding that the district court imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing or otherwise abused its discretion in sentencing Holiway. See United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing appellate court review of sentencing decision under abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing ways in which district court might be found to have committed abuse of discretion). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-2612 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Entry ID: 4004993

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?